As a procedure known heretofore for evaluating whether works and processings or treatments to be performed on an article at various life stages thereof are easy or not, there can first be mentioned a method according to which a designer is furnished with a check sheet for checking whether or not requisite items as listed are satisfied. A second method is a so-called design review method according to which the person skilled in design and implementation techniques judges the degree of easiness of the work and the processing or treatment which an article is to undergo on the basis of his or her experience to thereby point out those items which can be improved. Thirdly, an assemblability evaluation method and a processability evaluation method which are directed to the assembling and the processing or treatment as particular types of works may be mentioned.
As for the first and second procedures mentioned above, there are a contribution entitled "KANKYO HOZENGATA SEIHIN SEKKEI NO SUSUME (RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENT PRESERVATION TYPE PRODUCT DESIGNS)" contained in "NIKKEI NEW MATERIALS", pp. 14-25, (Jun. 10, 1991) and others. As for the techniques which concern the third evaluation method, there can be mentioned that disclosed in Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publications Nos. 69703/1992 and 114003/1993 (JP-A-H4-699703 and JP-A-H5-114003).
It is most desirable from the view point of effectiveness to examine or study sufficiently or adequately at the stage of designing an article whether the works and processings or treatments which the article undergoes at various life cycles or stages such as manufacturing, sale, use, maintenance/inspection/repair, recovery, dismantling, disassembling, recycling for resources, nontoxication, scrapping (or depositing) so that the results of the examination are reflected to the implementation of the article.
In order to realize the above, there is required some preparatory evaluation method. Additionally, it is also necessary to perform design improvement on the basis of evaluation indexes as determined by the evaluation method.
In view of the demand mentioned above, there have heretofore been published several preparatory evaluation methods such as mentioned above. However, most of the publicly known methods suffer from problems mentioned below and could not be applied to the evaluation concerning the maintenance/inspection/repair, dismantling and the recycling for resources. Namely,
(1) Most of the hitherto known evaluation methods are only check lists containing items of "should" or "should not" type, wherein the indexes for evaluation as determined are necessarily of a qualitative nature, rendering it impossible to make a quantitative evaluation. PA1 (2) Abundant experience and knowledge are required for the evaluation. PA1 (3) Information which can be derived concerns only the times or costs involved in the works and the processings or treatments, making it difficult to determine whether design is satisfactory or not. PA1 (4) Evaluation can be effected only upon completion of design or at a time point close thereto, which means that the design having undergone the evaluation is difficult to improve. PA1 (5) Since only easiness of the work and the processing or treatment is the subject matter for the evaluation, difficulty is encountered in attempting improvement of the design on the basis of the results of the evaluation. PA1 (6) Consideration is paid only to easiness of the works involved in manufacturing an article or part. It is impossible to evaluate easiness of the works and the processings or treatments at various life stages such as the maintenance/inspection/repair, dismantling, disassembling and the recycling for resources. PA1 (7) Because the object for evaluation is a uniformized or standardized work mode upon manufacturing an article or a part, it is impossible to cope with calculation of times or costs involved in the works and the processings or treatments which are complicated in respect to the execution modes such as exemplified by the maintenance/inspection/repair, dismantling and the disassembling. PA1 (8) Availability of information for the design improvement from the results of the evaluation depends solely on the experiences of the evaluator, which is thus accompanied with degradation in the efficiency. PA1 (1) quantitative evaluation, PA1 (2) unnecessity of abundant experience and knowledge, PA1 (3) availability of the indexes which allow the designs to be discriminated between the good and the bad, PA1 (4) capability of evaluation even at an earlier stage of design, PA1 (5) availability of instances to be referenced for design improvement, PA1 (6) capability of evaluating easiness of the works and the processings or treatments at various stages of life of an article or a part such as the maintenance/inspection/repair, dismantling, disassembling and the recycling for resources among others, PA1 (7) capability of coping with complicated work modes such as the maintenance, dismantling and the disassembling, and PA1 (8) capability of supporting or promoting activities for design improvement by utilizing the results of the evaluation, and